Just when I think it's not possible to hate dogs any more...

They are not only useless shiat machines with legs, now they eat body parts.

SlothB77: if your dog eats your toes and you sleep right through it, should we really be blaming the dog? that seems like the kinda thing you should notice.

FTA:
According to reports, the girl suffers from spina bifida, which "causes numbness in her lower extremities (and she) has basically no sensation beneath the waist."

Dogs treat wounds by licking. Our old dog would find a cut or scratch on your leg and lick it for a while. If it had a good scab on it, you had to be sure she wouldn't try to peel it off for you. The licked wounds always healed faster.

Owangotang: If anyone even dares to suggest that dogs can be vicious, dangerous animals well then by golly they MUST be trolling! I really hope that the dog in the article does not chew any more of the little girl's appendages off, however if the dog does then somehow the parents, animal control, and DCFS need to be held accountable.


It could have gone down two ways after that response to me up there.

Either you're a total farking ignorant moron talking straight from your ass or you're trolling.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Owangotang: If anyone even dares to suggest that dogs can be vicious, dangerous animals well then by golly they MUST be trolling! I really hope that the dog in the article does not chew any more of the little girl's appendages off, however if the dog does then somehow the parents, animal control, and DCFS need to be held accountable.

Yes, dogs can be vicious and some specific breeds are more commonly bred for that purpose than others, but that does not make any specific breed "more dangerous" than another.

Pit bulls are more commonly used for dog fighting, no one is denying that, but that doesn't mean that the pit bull breed is a more dangerous dog to own for a family. There are hundreds of thousands of families that own pit bulls that are no more aggressive or "vicious" than a golden retriever.

It is the maniacs that use these dogs for sick and disgusting purposes that need to be eliminated.

unr3a1: Yes, dogs can be vicious and some specific breeds are more commonly bred for that purpose than others, but that does not make any specific breed "more dangerous" than another.

What a load of crap.

You're just saying that so you don't offend pitbull owners. It's some kind of bizarre political correctness.

Actually, yes, on a genetic level, some animals are more aggressive and dangerous than others. All dogs are mutations from a particular kind of wolf, and selected over thousands of years for a certain temperament. This selection has become so extreme that it's led to amazing diversity in other mutations, most of which are related to dogs being more dependent and less adult-like.

Breeding these dogs back towards aggression has caused another set of mutations. The fact is that much of the dangerousness of an animal in innate rather than from their owner's treatment. Russian took a set of foxes and bred some for aggression and some for docility, and while there's no hard and fast 100% to this, it's clear the way these mutations work is that no aggressive breed can be made completely risk-free by super sweet owners. It just can't be done, which is why the vast majority of the time a pitbull hurts someone, the owners say the exact same 'he's so sweet and we raised him to be that way, and he never showed any sign of problems until he killed little Billy'.

Sorry... we want to pretend dogs are like people, but they are not people. They have instincts. Pitbulls will react severely to some stimulus and have tremendous destructive capability.

I'm not saying we should destroy all of a breed, though I am saying we shouldn't lie to ourselves with lame platitudes about how no breed is more dangerous than another. That's just not true. It's actually pretty silly.

If you've got a breed that is similar to dogs that are known to hurt folks, you should always be in control of your animal. You should consider insurance (such as an umbrella policy). It's just like any other dangerous thing, like a gun or a pool or some medicines, and it's on the owner to be sober about the potential problems.

The last thing we need is people pretending a Boston Terrier or a lab is as dangerous as a doberman. And I say this as someone who thinks pits are magnificent and beautiful animals. I just respect what they are.

Nocens: It could have gone down two ways after that response to me up there.

Either you're a total farking ignorant moron talking straight from your ass or you're trolling.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Nocens: Because it's like saying all women are hookers because they're equipped for it.


That was your brilliant analogy. It's not my fault that it doesn't make sense and possibly reveals some gender biases you harbor; that's your own doing. Calling someone a troll because he/she calls you on your bullshiat doesn't exonerate yo, it just means your spewing more BS.

Arcanum: unr3a1: Yes, dogs can be vicious and some specific breeds are more commonly bred for that purpose than others, but that does not make any specific breed "more dangerous" than another.

What a load of crap.

You're just saying that so you don't offend pitbull owners. It's some kind of bizarre political correctness.

Actually, yes, on a genetic level, some animals are more aggressive and dangerous than others. All dogs are mutations from a particular kind of wolf, and selected over thousands of years for a certain temperament. This selection has become so extreme that it's led to amazing diversity in other mutations, most of which are related to dogs being more dependent and less adult-like.

Breeding these dogs back towards aggression has caused another set of mutations. The fact is that much of the dangerousness of an animal in innate rather than from their owner's treatment. Russian took a set of foxes and bred some for aggression and some for docility, and while there's no hard and fast 100% to this, it's clear the way these mutations work is that no aggressive breed can be made completely risk-free by super sweet owners. It just can't be done, which is why the vast majority of the time a pitbull hurts someone, the owners say the exact same 'he's so sweet and we raised him to be that way, and he never showed any sign of problems until he killed little Billy'.

Sorry... we want to pretend dogs are like people, but they are not people. They have instincts. Pitbulls will react severely to some stimulus and have tremendous destructive capability.

I'm not saying we should destroy all of a breed, though I am saying we shouldn't lie to ourselves with lame platitudes about how no breed is more dangerous than another. That's just not true. It's actually pretty silly.

If you've got a breed that is similar to dogs that are known to hurt folks, you should always be in control of your animal. You should consider insurance (such as an umbrella policy). It's just like any other dangerous thing, like a gun or a pool or some medicines, and it's on the owner to be sober about the potential problems.

The last thing we need is people pretending a Boston Terrier or a lab is as dangerous as a doberman. And I say this as someone who thinks pits are magnificent and beautiful animals. I just respect what they are.

I really, really wish people who read your post would let it sink in and realize how right you are.

Owangotang: spacechicken170am: I don't think he even picked a breed yet. He's appears to be shooting some sort of lame ass trolling scattergun at the thread and seeing if he hits anything.

Not true, I just find it disgusting that there is not even an investigation into what the hell is going on in a home where a 10 year old girl has her toes amputated by a dog. Not DCFS, not animal control, and not even the child's parents seem to have any qualms about this. Who is looking out for this kid?

I'm willing to bet that they did take a look around the home and that the child is fairly well cared for (she was getting medical treatment for the toe). Do you really want to kill a poor sick kid's dog when it is unlikely to attack/eat toes again?

Scalded Ape: http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/dogmouth.asp

FTA:
Saliva (human or canine) is not antiseptic, so having a dog lick a wound in hopes of healing it more quickly is a poor idea. Folks have developed septicemia, a dangerous blood infection, from letting dogs lick open wounds.

The best treatment is to pick out all the stuff that's not supposed to be there and thoroughly rinse it with clean water. Then keep it clean and dry and let it breathe. Field stitches are an absolute no-no. If it's that bad, see a doctor.

/Learned it from these guys: http://www.wildmed.com

Well, I don't think it's as black-and-white as that. Saliva is as good or better for a wound than pretty much anything else in nature. We can do better with chemical treatment or boiling of water, and of course with chemical antiseptics, but without access to the above, saliva probably prevents more cases of septicemia than it causes.

If Owangotang tries any harder he will pull something.

The_Homeless_Guy: it is unlikely to eat toes again?

Well, unless one of the side effects of spina bifida is "spontaneous generation of limbs might occur", no.

Glad to see a little common sense prevail for once. That being said, had it been a Pit Bull and done the exact same thing, and behaved the exact same way at all times, it would be put down just because of the stigma.

The_Homeless_Guy: I'm willing to bet that they did take a look around the home and that the child is fairly well cared for (she was getting medical treatment for the toe). Do you really want to kill a poor sick kid's dog when it is unlikely to attack/eat toes again?

To be fair, its unlikely to eat toes again because they're farking gone. :P

Wai... hwhat?!?!

That does make one wonder whether the dog could detect gangrene forming..

//more power to the animal control folks on this one. It's nice to see them using a little logic instead of just killing the dog..

The_Homeless_Guy: Do you really want to kill a poor sick kid's dog when it is unlikely to attack/eat toes again?

Who said it had to be killed? I sure did not. I just want to know how far the insane dog love in this country is going to go. It's retarded and you're retarded if you think of your dog as a family member. It's a dog, not a human.

Nobody is protecting this little girl and it's a damn shame.

I can get you a toe, Dude. With nail polish.

depmode98: Hitler

Yes - magical, magical dogs with their amazing medical powers. I had a german shephard cure my diseased spleen just last week. He did it by gnawing off my kneecaps.

Your dog wants steak toes.

As someone with spina bifida, I'm getting a kick out of these replies

/less sensation in my left leg/foot
//still have all my toes